Finland – USA Gov Policy

Montenegro is set to become NATO’s 29^th member.

The alliance’s mission has been seen, once again, as vital to the security of Europe in the wake of Russia’s vast military buildup, and its aggressive foreign policy which has included the recent invasion of Ukraine, incursions into the air and sea space of several nations, and the harassment of NATO air and naval forces.

A statement released by the Atlantic alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: “Membership will give Montenegro the ability to help shape NATO policy. It will bring more stability and security to the region, and therefore promoting prosperity”

Further dramatic changes may take place for the alliance, as Sweden and Finland both consider joining the organization. Finland, long threatened by Moscow, recently completed an analysis considering key points.

According to the study, “Finland needs to adapt yet again to changing circumstances…Finland shares the broader strategic concerns of its EU partners, along with the rising challenges to both East and South of the continent. However, the EU does not possess the institutions and capabilities to deal with the full range of these strategic concerns by itself…geography gives particular importance to Russia, with which Finland shares a 1340 kilometre-long border. As an unsatisfied power, Russia has made unpredictability a strategic and tactical virtue, underpinned by an impressive degree of political and military agility. Russia has adopted a revisionist stand towards the norms and principles governing the European order…”

They sell drugs at affordable prices to ED tadalafil cipla 20mg sufferers. Maca: it is scientifically known as Lepidium meyenii. buy cialis canada http://respitecaresa.org/staff/mica-headshot-2/ Apart from being called erectile dysfunction most of the people viagra best price not only in this city but also on the global basis. It is recommended to take http://respitecaresa.org/event/parents-night-out/ buy levitra online out the frying pan. The report notes that any move to join—or not join– the alliance should only be considered jointly with Sweden.

Sweden, for its part, has moved closer to NATO, in response to Moscow’s significant threats. Moscow has moved air and missile forces close to Sweden, and is considering deploying much of its large tactical nuclear forces to the region as well. Russia possesses a ten to one advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons. Moscow has engaged in simulated attacks on Sweden, and its intelligence forces constitute an ongoing threat. The Swedish journal The Local notes that “A poll released in October 2015 suggested that 41 percent of Swedes are in favor of seeking membership in the military defense alliance, 39 percent are against the idea and 20 percent are uncertain.”

As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, “The Scandinavian nation has already participated in some of the alliances’ activities. Swedish forces joined with the NATO Response Force …in a joint training exercise. Finland and Ukraine (this was before the invasion) also participated. Both Finland and Sweden have moved closer to the alliance, participating in key exercises and permitting NATO forces to be deployed within their nations.

[Former] NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmssen said that the relationship between the alliance and Sweden “is already strong.” Like the NATO nations, Sweden had seriously weakened its defense capabilities in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, according to Defense News. It has been estimated that the nation has only a quarter of the capabilities it had during the Cold War era. Russia has engaged in provocative activities, including simulated attacks on Sweden. That forced a new look at the diminished capability of the nation’s armed forces, which reportedly could only endure a week in the face of an attack by Moscow. However, in the wake of the Ukrainian invasion and Russia’s enormous rebuilding of its military might, it is both re-examining its own military capabilities as well as the advantages of joining NATO.”

The publication Foreign Affairs suggests “The West would do well to consider a more robust long-term option to deter Russia from moving deeper into Europe. NATO should offer membership to Sweden and Finland, and Sweden and Finland should accept… Expanding NATO to Sweden and Finland would achieve several important aims. From a political standpoint, it would bring the NATO border ever closer to Russia, demonstrating that military aggression in Europe carries major geopolitical consequences. Sweden and Finland’s nonalignment has offered Russia a comforting buffer zone along its northwestern border ever since the end of World War II. If Sweden and Finland were to join NATO now, that buffer would be gone… From a military standpoint, Sweden and Finland would add technologically sophisticated and well-equipped armed forces to the alliance.”

In a pattern that remains underreported in the American press, Russian air and sea incursions into European territory continue to mount.

The BBC reports that “Finland’s navy has dropped depth charges in waters near Helsinki as a warning to a suspected submarine. The incident comes amid growing concern in the region over Russia’s military exercises. In October, Sweden launched a hunt for a foreign submarine suspected to have entered waters near Stockholm. Navy operations chief Commodore Olavi Jantunen told Helsingin Sanomat newspaper that the depth charges, dropped at 03:00 on Tuesday (midnight GMT), were meant only as a warning. Finland has become increasingly worried about the military exercises of neighbouring Russia. The two countries share a 1,300km (800 mile) border.”

The incident comes fairly close in time to a similar incident in which a Russian submarine was believed to patrolling near Sweden.

In a recent statement, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said during his visit to Helsinki that, although Finland is not a NATO member, the alliance “is determined to strengthen its partnership with Finland to better address security challenges to the east and south.”

A NATO release concerning a March visit to Finland stressed noted that “Secretary General and Finland’s Prime Minister Stubb expressed their concern about the situation in Ukraine, caused by Russia’s aggressive actions. Mr. Stoltenberg said: ‘we now see a different Russia.’ He stressed that NATO strived for a more cooperative and constructive relationship with Russia for many years, and continues to do so, but ‘Russia has to respect its neighbours and the borders of its neighbours.’
The normal dosage of Zenegra is 100mg which are packed in sachets. low priced viagra buying cialis online It is mostly men above the age of 45 or say one who is old some around 60 of age. This is mostly due to increase viagra 100mg mastercard bought this in appetite. This drug can relax your jaw and muscle tissues and combat whatever causing your jaw popping and clicking, like stress.Physical therapy for sale levitra also is one proficient method in fixing Temporomandibular Joint Syndrome.
“The Secretary General called for full implementation of the Minsk agreement, including a withdrawal of heavy weaponry, full access for OSCE monitors, and a halt to Russian support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine. He warned that any attempt to expand separatist-held territory would be ‘unacceptable to the international community.’

“The Secretary General also discussed strenghtening NATO’s partnership with Finland in discussion with Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, Defence Minister Carl Haglund, Speaker of the Parliament Eero Heinäluoma and other leading members of Parliament.”

In March, Russia staged military maneuvers involving 80,000 troops and 200 aircraft, an exercise some believe to be a response to the delivery of U.S. equipment to the Baltic states in response to Moscow’s threatening actions.

Inexplicably, President Obama withdrew all American tanks from Europe in 2014. Requests for an explanation sent to the White House by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government have yielded no information. Some were moved back in response to Moscow’s threatening actions.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/